by Katrina Trinko , USA TODAY

by Katrina Trinko , USA TODAY

President Obama needed two tries to get it right last week. Hopefully, he's learned the lesson that it's 2013 and it's bad form to comment on a woman's appearance when praising her professional aptitude.

Last week, Obama warmly praised California Attorney General Kamala Harris for being "dedicated" and "brilliant." Then Obama continued, "She also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country."

After taking some well deserved criticism for his comment, the president wisely apologized to her the next day. It's true that Obama's faux paus isn't as horrific as 2012 GOP senate candidate Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" remark. But Obama's comment contributed to a male-dominated culture where it's often seen as macho to analyze, discuss and, finally, judge female politicians' looks ad nauseam.

Sure, we talk about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's weight and Obama's shirtless pictures in Hawaii. But compare that level of chatter to the amount reserved for female politicians -- think what Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have gone through -- and it's simply not equivalent.

We've analyzed Clinton's hair and pant suits, we've talked about how she's aging and whether -- gasp! -- she can even contemplate running for president at the apparently old hag age of 68. (Never mind that Ronald Reagan was 69 in 1980.)

Palin's looks have generated their own round of controversy (Palin derided as "sexist" a 2009 Newsweek cover that showed her in running shorts, an image taken for a fitness magazine), and more recently, GOP presidential contender Michele Bachmann endured similar treatment, including being slammed as "The Queen of Rage" on a Newsweek cover that featured a singularly unflattering picture.

Do we really want looks to be a prime factor in our consideration and coverage of women seeking political office?

Optimally, looks shouldn't affect voters at all. Of course, that's unrealistic: as studies show, a woman's appearance can potentially affect her career success. According to a 2010 study published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, overweight women made $14,000 less than average-weight women, while thin women pocketed about $16,000 more. In contrast, thin men made about $8,000 less, and heavier men made more. And for both men and women, height can affect salaries, according to a 2004 study also published in the same journal.

Don't think this is workplace-exclusive behavior at all: like bosses and colleagues, voters are also influenced by appearance. According to a 2008 study published in the online journal PLOS ONE, while "all voters are likely to vote for candidates who appear more competent," nevertheless "male candidates that appear more approachable and female candidates who appear more attractive are more likely to win votes."

That makes complete sense, as obviously a woman's looks play a significant role in her ability to govern and to promote and pass legislation, right?

Ultimately, we all lose the chance to get the best elected officials when we allow attractiveness (or lack thereof) to factor into our decisions about who should best represent us. It's all too easy -- especially in this cable news era, where we're stuck seeing all these politicians' faces regularly -- to prefer the better-looking.

But when we already have so few women in office (only 20 senators and five governors), the onus should be to downplay the role looks can play, not highlight it further.

Katrina Trinko writes for National Review and is a member of USA TODAY's Board of Contributors.

In addition to its own editorials, USA TODAY publishes diverse opinions from outside writers, including our Board of Contributors.